Midsize Sedans 2.0

Comments

I&#146;m always amused at the sound of someone suggesting IMA not being a true hybrid. A hybrid is a hybrid, when it is capable of being propelled by hybrid power train system. Honda took a simpler approach than most. Instead of an overhauled design, the concept itself is brilliant: Replace the flywheel of an engine with a thin electric motor and voila! The problem is around storage capacity. For packaging, cost and weight reasons, smaller battery pack make more sense, and that was Honda&#146;s approach. Otherwise, they could have used the big motor and battery pack (which is now an ultra-capacitor pack) from EV-Plus currently available around as the FCX.

With Accord, Honda chose performance model, to address folks like you who keep complaining about less power (you&#146;re doing that against diesel, wanting a V6). I always doubted Honda&#146;s choice for going with hybrid on the top trim, for sale reasons. They should have started with a lesser trim with a lower base price. But I think, diesel would be a better option in bigger vehicles, Accord and above. It will be really interesting to watch Accord Diesel go against Camry/Altima/Aura/Malibu hybrids in the near future.

I&#146;m always amused at the sound of someone suggesting IMA not being a true hybrid.

It probably would have been stated better if he had said a "full hybrid" which is probably what he meant. Vehicles like the Prius and Escape Hybrid are considered to be full hybrids while vehicles like the Civic Hybrid are considered to be partial hybrids.

I don't know who defined what a full or partial hybrid is so please don't shoot the messenger if you don't agree. :shades:

The Accord diesel, IMO, would be an easier 'sacrifice' for most folks to make if, as I said earlier, they could offer it at 200hp+/400 lb.ft (probably requiring a v6) and somewhere around 30 mpg overall because then at least the car would be fun to drive.

I think Honda made the mistake of going with a "performance" hybrid, when they used a V6 engine. It obviously didn't work. With the diesel, I think Honda is going in the opposite direction. Fuel economy will be the main attraction for this car, and that IMO will make it a big hit. Honda is NOT going for the "performance" crowd with this one. If you want performance, the V6 (gasoline) version will be for you.

It is an irony that the ability to run solely on electric power has to define a &#147;hybrid&#148;, much less a &#147;full&#148; hybrid. That should make an electric-only vehicle fullest hybrid. :P

I find terms like parallel and series hybrid far more logical. Some of them can be dual mode (work in either/or mode) while some others might use them both at some point.

The &#147;full&#148;, &#147;mild&#148;, &#147;true&#148;, &#147;false&#148; or whatever term seem to have come from marketing PR material, propagated by sales folks and magazines. A series hybrid is just as much a &#147;true&#148; hybrid with batteries as without (in which case, it cannot run solely in electric mode), as would be a parallel hybrid or any combination of. &#147;Mild&#148; might be acceptable term however, since the car may rely more on gasoline/diesel engine for a significant portion of operation but even some of them (Civic Hybrid) are capable of running in electric mode under some circumstances, blurring the line.

"Full" hybrids can run on electric power alone while "mild" hybrids simply shut off the combustion engine when the vehicle stops.

That is partially correct if I'm not mistaken. Full hybrids are full hybrids and there isn't much difference between any of them. Mild, or partial, hybrids come in many flavors. You have those which only shut off the engine when stopped. Then there are some which power two wheels with a small electric motor like the GM pickups (totally useless IMO). Then there's those like the Civic which, and corrrect me if I'm wrong, use an electric motor somewhere between the gas engine and wheels to assist the gas motor.

There are more variations of the mild hybrids IIRC but I think I made my point.

this is very simple - diesel powered cars don't accelerate well because the engine is slower to pick up rpm and are in fact rev limited to much lower rpms, so in effect it doesn't put all that torque to good use - which BTW is the mathematical definition of HP - (torque*rpm)/5252. There is a direct correlation between car acceleration times and HP and vehice weight (hp per lb.) and not necessarily with torque. What I am saying is that the 260 lb. ft. lb. will improve the drivability of the new Accord diesel as well as provide the a nice sort of 'kick' on initial throttle application only. It will still be the 150hp (and the extra weight) though that makes it a slow car. Relative to something like a diesel the gas engine puts out more of that usable horsepower simply because it can (and does) rev more freely and quickly. Anybody that has spent anytime with the VW diesels knows what I mean - a car that 'feels' faster than it is.Whether it'll beat 10 seconds to 60 I don't know but I also think that the auto buyer is not ready to return to those underpowered 'wundercars' of the 80s and early 90s (or FTM manual trannies) all in the interest of saving 10-15 gallons of fuel a month.

Whether it'll beat 10 seconds to 60 I don't know but I also think that the auto buyer is not ready to return to those underpowered 'wundercars' of the 80s and early 90s (or FTM manual trannies) all in the interest of saving 10-15 gallons of fuel a month.

I think the Accord diesel engine will be more advanced than those engines of the 80's and 90's. Honda will, I'm sure, pair the engine with a transmission that will get the most out of the package. You may be surprised.

I have always understood that torque does actually make the car quicker at slower speeds (lower RPMs) - yes?? It just doesn't carry through to higher RPM's / speeds. Do I have this right? Ft/Lbs of torque is a better measure of off-the-line performance than is horse power --- correct?

... but I also think that the auto buyer is not ready to return to those underpowered 'wundercars' of the 80s and early 90s (or FTM manual trannies) all in the interest of saving 10-15 gallons of fuel a month.

I humbly disagree, Captain. When gasoline gets to $5 a gallon, which will be sooner rather than later, 10 to 15 gallons a month translates into $50 to $75 a month. I am already regretting buying a 3.0-liter V6 AWD 2007 Fusion because of its horrific (14.8) in-city gas mileage.

Indeed, our next car may well be the new four-cylinder diesel from Honda, if and when it arrives on the market, preferably with a six-speed automatic.

Torque by itself is meaningless. I can generate 300 ft/lbs of torque with my arm but I can't generate many RPM. HP is torque x RPM so you can get more HP by increasing torque or by increasing RPM. The advantage of having more torque available at lower RPM is that it makes more HP than having less torque at the same RPM. And when you're doing a 0-60 run you have to get through the lower RPM range before you get to the upper RPM range.

In the end, it's all about HP. But an engine with more torque at lower RPM will have more HP available off the line.

$50 to $75 is maybe just an average and may also be more. Certainly can make a difference for a lot of folks. In your case if your Fusion is only delivering 15 mpg for your particular driving conditions and habits, then I would also suggest that this Accord diesel is likely going to get you 'only'about 10 or 12 more mpg in the same conditions. Not to poo-poo the significance of that, have no idea how much you drive, but in these days of our 'appliance' (as one poster contends) 4 door sedans in some cases leaving 'muscle cars' in the dust are we really going to happy with 150hp pulling along 3500-3600 lbs or more. Not that I have any problem with the diesel per se, I really believe that this is where we are heading (near term) but I wish that Honda would have taken a more 'performance' approach instead of just out and out FE. Such things are possible these days even with diesels. If we really wanted appliances, we could all line up to buy the Camry and Altima hybrids, which apparently don't justify their cost premiums especially over the short term. This all said, I'm relatively confident that the Accord diesel will be met with an adoring audience and possibly even some good reviews (from everybody except the enthusiast mags) and sell at some premium over MSRP.

I have always understood that torque does actually make the car quicker at slower speeds (lower RPMs) - yes?? no, that torque only makes the car feel quicker, if that torque can not be turned into HP it will have no effect on things like acceleration times. Akirby has it right, in effect, torque is meaningless.

Diesel engines may lack some responsiveness of gasoline engines, but they don&#146;t have to rev higher to have higher average power. So that aspect evens out. What does higher average power get you? It will potentially improve average power to weight ratio which in turn would help improve performance.

You are trying to make a point on power but getting bogged down by looking at torque, and treating them as independent entities when they are not. The bottom line is, torque is only as good as the power it helps generate. If you know power, there is no need to re-focus on torque that you are doing in that &#147;kick-in&#148; argument.

If you are aware of characteristics of a diesel engine, you would also know that diesel engines tend to have flatter power curve, whereas a gasoline engine with broader torque curve will have a steadily rising power curve. The former was also a big part of muscle cars until recently. They had lot of torque but peak was usually low but average power was higher than it was in higher revving but equally powerful performance engines.

If you could operate solely at peak power (155 HP in Accord Diesel, 158 HP in Camry, 169 HP in Malibu or 177-190 HP in Accord) using a CVT, then Accord diesel would have no chance as it will not have that higher average power advantage anymore while also weighing more. But reality is different. Engines operate over a range.

So, contrary to your belief, a diesel&#146;s usable power is closer to its peak. That is one reason why, despite being heavier and less powerful, the current European Accord Diesel (138 HP) is quicker than European Accord 2.0 (155 HP). It is slower than the more powerful Accord 2.4 (190 HP) however, but not by much.

For these reasons, don&#146;t expect the Accord Diesel to be a slouch when it comes to performance. It won&#146;t match the performance of most V6 powered versions but with 0-60 in about 9.0s with auto transmission, it will be one of the quicker four cylinder family sedans (by comparison, the new Malibu got it done in 10s).

What car do you drive?

Are we really going to happy with 150hp pulling along 3500-3600 lbs or more

Like I suggested earlier, you won&#146;t be if you only stuck with peak power. In reality, a 3500-3600 lb diesel car is likely to have better power to weight ratio than a similar gasoline powered 3400-3500 lb car. That would be due to higher average power in diesel. Remember, diesel engines don&#146;t have steadily rising power curve, so the average power over operating range is closer to the rated peak power than it is in gasoline powered cars.

I illustrated this earlier. 190 HP Accord (3400+ lb) or 169 HP Malibu (3400+ lb) have higher peak power, but do would they have higher average power? I don&#146;t know the gearing for Malibu, so I will use the Accord, and apply V6 gearing for the diesel.

In first gear, Accord Diesel 2000 rpm (100 HP) will correspond with 13+ mph and 4000 rpm (155 HP) will correspond with about 27 mph. Median power accelerating from 13 to 27 mph: 127.5 HP.

Now, even if the diesel tipped the scale at 3550 lb, it would have 27.8 lb/HP at the median. For gasoline with 3425 lb, it would be 37 lb/HP. Now you know why the diesel would feel peppier.

Unless the gasoline version operates over a range where its average power is higher than that from diesel, it won&#146;t perform better simply by virtue of having higher peak power or 100 lb less weight. The focus needs to go beyond peak output ratings.

I agree with you. And while to many $50/month may not seem like much, I (and it seems you are too) prefer to look at the bigger picture. Ownership cost over extended time is important or I would just lease a luxury car and pay less per month than I do buying a mainstream car. A $50/month in savings over only 5 years would translate to a whopping $3K savings at the pump.

But 15 mpg is VERY low for a midsize family sedan. Have you had dealership check out your car? What are your driving conditions?

Engine rpm translates to wheel speed. Torque is related to thrust. Power combines them both. So, torque by itself is meaningless, while simply knowing power can reveal quite a few things. For example, if there are two cars, identical in all aspects but power/torque output, if one of them produces 200 HP on average during a run compared to another that produced 160 HP, even if the second had higher average torque, it will be outperformed by the first by 25% (200/160=1.25).

Now, this 25% advantage in power doesn&#146;t necessarily imply higher speed (most folks associate power solely with speed and torque with force, and while partly correct, the argument has big flaws). Power by definition relates speed and force. In fact, it balances them. A car with 200 HP (average) may be going 25% faster than another with 200 HP (average). On the flip side, the second car will have 25% greater thrust. So, neither is outperforming the other (200/200=1.00), but compensating in different ways.

This is why, for traditional performance measurements (acceleration), it is better to relate power and speed. The best way to understand this is to use a CVT setup as it can allow certain power during acceleration (that power replaces the &#147;average&#148; power). Doing so, if we have two similar cars, one produces 200 HP (but only 160 lb-ft) during the run and the other has 160 HP (but 200 lb-ft) during the run, the 200 HP car will out-accelerate the other car with higher torque, and will feel peppier (by 25%).

But 15 mpg is VERY low for a midsize family sedan. Have you had dealership check out your car? What are your driving conditions?

The revised (lower) EPA rating for this power train, V6, AWD, is 17 mpg city and 24 mpg highway. Yes, the dealer put it on a portable computer at 1,500 miles and everything checked out OK.

Our in-city driving is stop 'n' go, short hops, but not bumper-to-bumper. Our terrain is as flat as a pool table, the tires are properly inflated and my wife and I are gentle, conservative drivers. I think the AWD is the gas culprit. On the only trip we have taken with it -- 360 miles round trip -- it delivered 26 mpg going and 24 mpg returning.

The 2007 SEL Fusion is a great car except for this mileage problem, which is of great concern since gasoline is at $3 a gallon and heading north. Fortunately, we don't drive the car all that much: Only have 5,300 miles on it since Dec. 4, 2006.

But 15 mpg is VERY low for a midsize family sedan. Have you had dealership check out your car? What are your driving conditions?

My Optima gets even less MPG in town.14.something.I blame the fact that it never has a chance to warm up,since usually the trips are less than 2 miles.Yes...it is a 4Cyl,and the HP is 161.Plenty peppy enough for me.

We've been through this many times. His typical commute is very low speed, lots of stop and go and only about 5 miles - hardly enough time to get the engine warmed up. It's not the car - it's the driving.

Who says the diesel will be that much heavier than the gasser Accord? It all depends on the trim Honda chooses to pair the diesel with. In LX-P trim a 3236lb gasser won't preform much different from a 3300lb? diesel. By MMC time when the 4 cyl EX will have 200+HP there might a diff but till then performance won't be a differentiator between any of the 4 cyl Accords.

I suppose this could be more entertaining than an auto w/out manual overrides, and perhaps a little more convenient than automatics w/ overrides... but I'm not sure I'd find the experience w/ paddle shifters a big deal beyond the novelty of it. Perhaps you're wondering why I'm bringing this up... I saw a pic of the next gen mazda6 and it showed paddle shifters. Of course it's possible these are only for europe and/or Japan since the north america specs have not been released...

sorry for the supersized pic, but I don't have a way to resize at work...

My assumption is based on a few things. I&#146;ve seen Honda&#146;s current diesel engine (which, I believe was a first for using aluminum block) mentioned weighing 375 lb, about 100 lb more than the number I have seen for 2.2-liter used previously in Accord/Prelude. My guess is that the current 2.4 in Accord weighs about the same (or probably is lighter) than the old 2.2.

Also, to handle the extra torque, a beefier transmission is required. So my guess is that the transmission will be shared with Accord V6, and that may add a few pounds.

And finally, identically equipped, Accord EX/Diesel in UK weighs about 79 kg more than Accord EX/2.4. That translates to 170 lb. In some applications, the difference is less, so 150 lb would be a logical guess.

If it is put in LX-P trim which weighs around 3250 lb I believe, then LX-P/diesel would be around 3400 lb. If it is EX trim (about 3425 lb), then the diesel would be 3550-3600 lb. But diesel has more than enough grunt to make up for the additional weight, when it comes to accelerative performance. It will lack some in high HP scenario, but unlikely to be experienced in around town driving. It should get 30-35% better fuel economy (in the real world), however.

Since Fusion uses a reactive AWD system (rear wheels engage only if slippage is detected in the front wheels), I don&#146;t think AWD is the culprit. And I don&#146;t think EPA considers impact from different types of AWD system either. Permanent AWD systems (like Acura&#146;s SH-AWD or BMW&#146;s x-Drive) that keep all wheels engaged at all times are mostly covered, but in reactive system as in Fusion, Escape, CR-V etc (or even proactive/reactive systems like Honda&#146;s VTM-4), they don&#146;t have a test cycle for it. My bet would be that they simply deduct a percentage off for just having an AWD system.

Now a reactive AWD can have an impact anyway, due to additional weight (logical guess would be 125-150 lb) but it should be negligible. So, if not your car, then your driving conditions might be it. The worst tanks in my 98 Accord over its 183K miles so far returned 23-24 mpg seen for about a year when I lived within 2 miles from office. Otherwise, 26 mpg is the norm in mixed driving (up to 33 mpg at 75 mph on freeway).

So, driving conditions do affect a lot. In addition, I don&#146;t idle my cars much after cold starts. While a bit longer during winter, 10-15 seconds is the norm. Engine warms up quicker when rolling, I just take care to not be aggressive with the throttle until it does. Despite its age/miles, Accord will warm up in a little over a quarter mile (up to half mile on colder days). That can also help improve fuel economy a bit.

You could try some of these things, besides less braking (or avoiding it as much as possible), and could see 10-15% improvement. For me, less braking might be helping. I&#146;ve replaced front brake pads only once in my 183K mile Accord (the current pads have 93K miles on them). The rear brake pads were replaced at about 132K miles so they have about 61K miles so far. As a result, even my TL gets me 25-26 mpg consistently. And I'm one of the fastest drivers on the road.

I got a chance to drive my friend's Hybrid Accord yesterday. What a powerful car !!!!! Accleration is effortless and you can easily get 35 + mpg. I am surprised the car didn't sell well. Personally, I would definitely prefer the Hybrid Accord over the diesel.